| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 18:02 +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote: |
| 2 |
> These are "nice to know" points. If you remember anything else, pls let |
| 3 |
> me know. Tks |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I have started to working on it (for fun) in my spare time and I am |
| 6 |
> having some success. I have set up the user/group in Cygwin to look more |
| 7 |
> like Linux which is mostly working. I added the os definitions which |
| 8 |
> were missing from portage. I am now at the stage where the file locks |
| 9 |
> are not getting removed. |
| 10 |
Interesting. Which portage version are you using |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
? |
| 13 |
> The ":" might be tricky, however, I could use a managed mount for |
| 14 |
> portage. Perhaps the offending packages could simply be renamed. |
| 15 |
RSYNC_EXCLUDE can contain a list of files not to transfer - filtering |
| 16 |
out the two or three offenders shouldn't be difficult |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I am only interested in getting Cygwin working so SFU not in my scope. I |
| 19 |
> have not found Cygwin buggy, and even if it were broken, its just code |
| 20 |
> that can be fixed... Do you have examples... |
| 21 |
the linker dies after ~30 package compiles because it can't allocate an |
| 22 |
address for the dynamic libraries |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
some functions of the libc are just stubs and don't do what they pretend |
| 25 |
to do |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
file semantics are b0rked in some quite evil ways |
| 28 |
(removing an open file does some magic and almost looks like Unix) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In general it almost works, but these bugs can be really annoying. |
| 31 |
And whenever you think you've found them all you find a new one ;-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
wkr, |
| 34 |
Patrick |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-cygwin@g.o mailing list |
Archives